RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
Ian
I still have some confusion, but maybe that's just me - it might all be very
clear to everyone else on the list. See my comments below.
Regards
Chris
> > Is your definition of 'natural' anything that is not
> > 'supernatural'?
>
> Yes
>
> >If so
> > does it equate to 'anything that is regarded as existing not
> > outside of
> > space/time'?
>
> Yes, for me, supernatural covers everything that is assumed
> to exist outside
> of space/time.
>
> CJA> Does this include 'universals'?
It depends on how you define universals. If you regard them as Platonic
forms, then yes they would be included among the supernatural. If you
regard them as being wholly instantiated in the physical world in some way,
then no they would not be among the supernatural.
CJA> So you would treat a class as supernatural if any of its members were
supernatural and natural only as long as all its members were natural?
>
> > If so, what scope do you put on 'existing'?
>
> I don't know what this question means.
>
> CJA> It was a difficult question to phrase because I am not
> sure what you
> mean by 'existing', so let me just ask "What do you mean by
> 'existing'?".
I don't think I can define what I mean by "existing". If there is a set of
semantic primitives, then "exists" is surely one of them.
CJA> I still have trouble coming properly to terms with what is encompassed
by the converse of "for me, supernatural covers everything that is assumed
to exist outside of space/time". Would all naturalists treat of "unicorns"
in the same way?